Marco Rubio is dead to me
By Selwyn Duke
Young, handsome and Hispanic, Marco Rubio was once hailed as one of the new faces of the Republican Party. But now we learn that he actually brings two new faces to the GOP.
One that says one thing one moment and another that says a different thing at a different moment.
And then comes the death of the nation.
The Gang of Eight (GOE) scamnesty bill would grant legalization to more than 30 million migrants — and the number could be far higher — over the next 10 years, who will then have further access to taxpayer-funded services, programs and handouts. Moreover, demographic electoral analysis clearly shows that virtually all these new "Americans" would vote for socialist politicians (read: liberal Democrats), just as they did in their native lands. So I understand why GOE-Scam authors Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) consider the bill a good idea. I understand why Mexico considers it a good idea. I understand why China, Russia and any other nation that wanted American power and culture neutralized would consider it a good idea. But why, Senator Rubio, do you consider the bill a good idea? You and your politics keep some very strange and alarming bedfellows.
So I have something to say, and this isn't just for Rubio. Any politician — Democrat, Republican or independent — who supports amnesty in any form or by any name is dead to me.
Immigration is a deal-breaker issue because it involves forces with the power to reshape your land into a different nation altogether. Thus, I would say that there can be no compromise on it, except that compromise isn't even on the horizon. That is to say, imagine the powers-that-be didn't have the will to punish the current crop of apprehended bank robbers; instead, they wanted to grant them amnesty and let them keep their ill-gotten gains. But they promised that if we agreed to this plan, they would increase police presence and reinforce bank-vault doors in the future. Would you consider this compromise? Would it even be that if we granted amnesty to only 20 percent of bank robbers?
Agreeing to facilitate law-breaking isn't compromise — it's capitulation. In a sane world, you don't allow criminals to reap the benefits of their law-breaking; you punish them. Compromise would be if we were discussing ending all immigration — as we should do — but then agreed to settle for a mere reduction in the numbers.
But it appears that some so-called "conservatives" have taken a high-dose stupid pill. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Ronald Reagan got bitten by his 1986 amnesty (which he called a "mistake") when he agree to legalize the law-breakers in return for a Democrat promise of border enforcement, a promise that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. And since then we've had six more amnesties.
Fact: the Democrats have never secured the border.
And they never will.
Oh, if the new arrivals had a history of voting GOP, the border would be locked down so tight a bacterium couldn't breach it. There'd be a wall with a fence on top of it, military patrols and Star Wars-type drones with heat-seeking technology buzzing about. But the Democrats have no intention of rejecting their main constituency: anyone who isn't Americanized.
And that's the point. Allowing immigration doesn't just invite new people into your nation — it invites new voters into your nation. And any Republican who believes that the Hispanic voting bloc can be wooed with Rubioesque pandering is far too ignorant and dangerous to hold office.
If Marco Rubio and his fellow travelers want to hasten the death of traditional America, they are dead to me. Let's ensure that their political careers rest in peace long before the republic does.